list_recruiting_opinions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral traits; it only restates the listing nature. The mention of opinion refs is more about output format than behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two succinct sentences: first defines purpose, second provides input format and output reference. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics (review format, limit) and hints at output structure via opinion refs. For a list tool with a single required parameter, this is fully sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description compensates for the 50% schema coverage by detailing that the 'review' parameter accepts multiple formats (raw _id, RVE-<number>, bare number, exact title). This is critical information missing from the input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List Recruiting opinions for one review', specifying the verb (List), resource (Recruiting opinions), and scope (for one review). It distinguishes from siblings like list_recruiting_reviews (lists reviews) and get_recruiting_opinion (single opinion).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on how to specify the review parameter ('raw _id, RVE-<number>, bare number, or exact title'), which is essential for correct usage. However, it lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.